The music industry has witnessed a continuous proliferation of ‘illegal’ (non-paid for) peer-to-peer, server to peer and other forms of digital music transfer since the model of Napster was first introduced in 1999.
There has been great acceptance of illegal file sharing services by the receipt masses. Convenience, unlimited access, vast array of inventory have all fueled the enormous growth of these various models in direct conflict to the economically untenable financial position it has caused for the music industry and its various constituencies. It is widely know that the music industry has had a decline of sales of $10 billion between the years 2001 and 2006 when considering international sales.
In an effort to mitigate the effect of the various illegal file-sharing services, two strategies have emerged which are being spearheaded from within the music industry. The first is the legal response, as we have witnessed strategies with the “Grokster” case and continuing with dozens other prosecutions. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has led the efforts to prosecute both individuals and companies who are actively involved in the download community.
The second approach strikes at the heart of protecting the content from being transferred from the rightful user to other media devices through an electronic authentication system. Digital Rights Management (DRM) is the umbrella term referring to any of several technologies used to enforce pre-defined policies controlling access to software, music, movies, or other data and hardware.
In more technical terms, DRM handles the description, layering, analysis, valuation, trading and monitoring of the rights held over a digital work. In the widest possible sense, the term refers to any such management strategy.
Along these lines, various technology platforms have been developed which include, Fairplay™, AAC, and PlayForSure™ (WMA DRM 10 format), all of which employ an encryption and decryption process.
Other forms of DRM such as Digital Watermarking have been deployed, the efforts of which have been focused on insuring that content stays in the intended rightful hands (on their playback platform).
The primary motivation for any DRM process is to protect the copyright holders of the content against infringement and to insure they are rightfully compensated when a listener (user) downloads or plays the copyright holder's song or audio book file.
In an ideal world, there should exist a scenario in which the copyright holder's property is economically maintained. This of course would require all users, labels and DRM technologies to honor the various laws that govern the conduct of enforceability.
As has been demonstrated since the deployment of the original Napster system, an honor system between consumer and copyright holder does not exist and copyright holders have and continue to suffer economic losses as a result.
It is no surprise that almost as soon as a new DRM strategy is implemented, the hacker community initiates a counter-effort to break and set neutral the new DRM strategy. This renders the content susceptible to piracy and illicit distribution once again.
The result is that music labels and independent artists are in a constant state of economic vulnerability. In addition to the financial losses, the tailspin of the traditional music distribution paradigm has led to the decline of new works from existing artists as well as a reduction in promotional capital committed to new artists. This is based on the music labels having diverted their artist and repertoire capital to the legal battles in which they seek protection of copyrighted materials rather than promotion of them.
The music industry at large needs to deploy a set of solutions in which all the constituencies are rewarded and all parties involved in an economics transaction are properly compensated based upon economic value returned by the purchaser of the copyright-protected music or audio books.
Thus one possible useful solution is to modify audio content in a useful but personalized manner so that another would find the content less useful than his/her own personalized audio content.